March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

In spite of the Carbon fuel industry's huge 'investment' in
'public relations,' global mean surface temperatures continue
to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 129 years. Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.

The last 128 yearly means of these data are graphed at:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Glob...ean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean March temperature over the last 129 years is 13.998 C.
The Variance is 0.08307.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2882.

Rxy 0.79294 Rxy^2 0.62875
TEMP = 13.599444 + (0.006137 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 215.08622
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999999999999999 (28 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of March in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.391,
yet it was 14.67. - 1 SIGMA above projected
The sum of the residuals is 17.53310

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.60454 * e^(.0004358 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 17.43215

Rank of the months of March
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2002 14.84 0.842 2.92
2005 14.70 0.702 2.43
2008 14.67 0.672 2.33 --
1990 14.67 0.672 2.33
2007 14.60 0.602 2.09
2004 14.59 0.592 2.05
1998 14.56 0.562 1.95
2006 14.55 0.552 1.91
2001 14.54 0.542 1.88
2003 14.51 0.512 1.78
1988 14.47 0.472 1.64
2000 14.46 0.462 1.60
1997 14.46 0.462 1.60
MEAN 13.998 0.000 0.00
1960 13.68 -0.318 -1.10
1916 13.68 -0.318 -1.10
1886 13.67 -0.328 -1.14
1910 13.66 -0.338 -1.17
1892 13.66 -0.338 -1.17
1913 13.65 -0.348 -1.21
1912 13.65 -0.348 -1.21
1887 13.62 -0.378 -1.31
1909 13.55 -0.448 -1.56
1888 13.54 -0.458 -1.59
1917 13.53 -0.468 -1.63
1911 13.52 -0.478 -1.66
1908 13.52 -0.478 -1.66
1898 13.52 -0.478 -1.66

The most recent 169 continuous months, or 14 years and 1 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1539 months of data on this data set:
-- 659 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 169 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.

The world is ending....YAWN


snore bore...


On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 18:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
sayd the following:

March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

"Robert Blass" wrote
The world is ending....YAWN

Ending for some species, yes. And the more that will die out the more
likely it will be that you will be found hanging from a tree by the rope.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:45:38 -0700, "V-for-Vendicar"
sayd the following:


"Robert Blass" wrote
The world is ending....YAWN

Ending for some species, yes. And the more that will die out the more
likely it will be that you will be found hanging from a tree by the rope.



You're DRAMATIC about this so called "man made" warming.

DRAMA is all your side has right now.

You should go to acting school.

Robert Blass wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:45:38 -0700, "V-for-Vendicar"
sayd the following:

"Robert Blass" wrote
The world is ending....YAWN
Ending for some species, yes. And the more that will die out the more
likely it will be that you will be found hanging from a tree by the rope.



You're DRAMATIC about this so called "man made" warming.

DRAMA is all your side has right now.

You should go to acting school.


Romeo where for art thaugh hottest years on record?

Alas, poor Horatio, I knew his carbon offsets well.

"Robert Blass" wrote
DRAMA is all your side has right now.

Well that and several thousand years of temperature data, satellite data,
bore hole measuremnts, ocean temperature measurements, and 150 years of
radiative science.

MMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNN NNNNN

Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

On Apr 8, 8:01*pm, Poetic Justice -n-
Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data,
as do several other organizations. I use NASA's data
because GISS corrects for UHI using nighttime earth
shine, artificial lighting, measured from satellites.
IMHO, this method is better than using census data
to locate urban areas.

On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01*pm, Poetic Justice -n-

Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data,
as do several other organizations. *I use NASA's data
because GISS corrects for UHI using nighttime earth
shine, artificial lighting, measured from satellites.
IMHO, this method is better than using census data
to locate urban areas.

That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.

The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a rural area
near to the urban station to act as a control (being a sicnetist you
wold know this of course).

Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore the urban
station data since rural data is true surface temp.

And what happens when you do that? You get no warming trend. RURAL
STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND.

matt_sykes wrote:
On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01 pm, Poetic Justice -n-

Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data,
as do several other organizations. I use NASA's data
because GISS corrects for UHI using nighttime earth
shine, artificial lighting, measured from satellites.
IMHO, this method is better than using census data
to locate urban areas.

That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.

The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a rural area
near to the urban station to act as a control (being a sicnetist you
wold know this of course).

Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore the urban
station data since rural data is true surface temp.

And what happens when you do that? You get no warming trend. RURAL
STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND.

Simply a lie.